@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec
(A) The electoral college seems to break in favor of the GOP, who minorities overwhelmingly vote against, so your theory there doesn't really match reality.
(B) Though a congressperson may only represent their district, they vote on legislation that affects the entire country, so that logic doesn't work. I don't want to elect someone who doesn't want to fund snowplows on northern highways just because he's from Florida.
🇳🇱
We arent talki g racial minorities, we are talking american cultures. Southern culture, amish terretories, mennonite terretories, etc. Its not about race, wrong sort of minority in this context.
The logic works fine, there are senators that represent those other areas and their culture, so its fine. We also balance that out in a different way, by adding a fixed number of sentators as a base and then addind more due to population. This evens out the densities in a similar way.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec Funny, I didn't say "race"...
The senators are elected with the exact same popular vote system as the house members. How is that different?
The senate doesn't "even out the densities". If anything, it makes the representation far more lopsided than it should be by, again, correlating arbitrary geographic boundaries with voting power.
@LouisIngenthron @thegonzoism @trinsec
No they arent elected the same.
In the house the number of seats per stste is based on population, bigger get more. The senate is fixed with each stste getting 2 and only 2. This ensures states that have low populations and are mostly red states in this case, get more representstion per person.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec ...and do you think that's a good thing?
@LouisIngenthron @thegonzoism @trinsec
As ive stated, if balanced correctly (the numbers need twesking sometines) then yes. It prevents a tyranny of the minority as discussed. It ensures the various cultures we have who are small isolated groups (like the amish) dont get thrown under a bus for the whims of the majority
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec I gotta say, living in a country where we literally enslaved people, I'm much more concerned about the tyranny of the majority than the tyranny of the minority.
@LouisIngenthron @thegonzoism @trinsec
Sorry the phrase i meant to use was tyrwnny of the majority.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec Well, I gotta say, if that's the goal, then weighting human beings' votes based on arbitrary, archaic geographic borders seems like an especially poor method of achieving it.
As America's population grows, new cities will bloom in currently-vacant states. Once there's a metropolis in every state, how well will this system prevent that "tyranny" you're concerned about?
@LouisIngenthron @thegonzoism @trinsec
Thats why we tweak the numbers as populations change to balance it again. Weve done it a few times iirc.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec We do in the house, which is actually somewhat representative, yes. But there's no tweaking in the senate. The boundaries of the states are fixed and there are two senators per state.
Which means that a person from Wyoming's vote is about 68x more powerful than a person from California in the Senate.
@LouisIngenthron @thegonzoism @trinsec
Yes but in the house the vote strongly favors california. It makes sense to me that the house shoukd be balanced for population and the senate flat. It ensures there must be both a majority acceptance, and a state-majority acceptance to pass new laws...
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec California has 30% more people than the second most populous state. For a vote to favor California is a sign that people are being properly represented. (And I don't like it any more than you; even living in the land of Florida Man, I think California is bonkers.)
Honestly, the better answer, in my opinion, would be to break up both California and Texas into into about three states each. That would allow better representation of the people in their local areas, instead of being lumped in with 40 million others.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec Right, because they have more people. If you're measuring a vote by both number of people and breaking it down by geographic regions, then a fair vote should logically "favor" the geographic region with the most voters. That's simple statistics, not a problem to be solved.
Yes its about balancing the two... States each have their own laws, their own governance and their own cultures (to an extent)...A state is more like a country in some ways.
Its a bit like saying the USA should be able to dictate what the middle east can do in the UN simply because we have more people... If a state wants to keep its population down, and its people are **responsible** enough to keep a low population which is healthier for the people and environment, they shouldnt be penalized for it... It makes a great deal of sense that each state gets its own vote that is only partly weighted by population, and partly flat.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec I strongly disagree. Weighting votes by population density doesn't seem that far off from weighting votes by skin color. It gives unfair preference to certain people just because they were lucky enough to be born into a certain culture.
Having your vote be worth the same as your fellow countrymen's isn't a "punishment" just because you don't have enough like-minded people around to win.
There needs to be a way to protect states rights, to ensure larger states cant bullt smaller states into changing their laws... I am ok with any solution that does this, what we have is the best I know of so far.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec Why should states' rights override humans' rights?
They shouldnt, which is why within a state every person should have an equal vote for representation in that state. Therefore everyone has equal rights, and each state has fair representation as well without being overhelmed by the will of other states.
This is hardly a new concept, it is the way virtually every union of member states operates, with each state fairly electing its own governnance and then those respected governments each representing themselves in the greater union.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec Also, it is not the "way virtually every union of member states operates". It is, in fact, the way very few of them operate.
Thats a link to democracies, not unions, so not related... UNIONS all operate this way whether its the EU, the UN, or NATO.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec All non-tiny countries are unions of subdivided geography and culture.
And the EU, UN, and NATO, aren't comparable to the US. Those are alliances, not sovereign countries.
A union is a very specific thing... having lots of cultures and geography is not a union.. a union is a collection of nation-states.. I listed the three examples of unions that are most noted, there arent oo many others (the UK can be considered one but it is so irregular many of its members are barely treated like members, like canada, so its just not a good example).
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec Then the US doesn't qualify as a union. Our states are not "nation-states". They are not sovereign, they do not have their own militaries, they do not engage in their own diplomacy.
We very much are a union of states. This has been well established since the earliest days of the USA.
There are also tons of countries that font follow your criteria (for example countries with no military, and which dont engage in their own diplomacy). None of that is required to be considered a state.
@LouisIngenthron @thegonzoism @trinsec
Oh and states in the USA **are** considered to have their own sovereignty.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec No, they absolutely do not. By definition, they gave that up to join the union.
Nope state soverignty is explicitly recognized by the supreme court of the united states. It is said to be garunteed by the 10th amendment.
One such quote:
"But the Court found that “there are attributes of sovereignty attaching to every state government which may not be impaired by Congress, not because Congress may lack an affirmative grant of legislative authority to reach the matter, but because the Constitution prohibits it from exercising the authority in that manner.”
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec That term, "state sovereignty", describes what sovereignty is left to the states after the rest has been taken by the feds, as defined in our constitution. It describes the *limits* of their sovereignty. It is not a declaration of their sovereignty, which would require them to be wholly independent, by definition.
No you are thinking of a specific type of sovereignty called "Westphalian sovereignty".. not all sovereignty means that there is no other authority or no complex hierarchy... that is the colloqual use of the term, but int he case of unions it is more nuanced.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec Every dictionary I can find disagrees with you.
Thats what happens when you look up non-technical definitions and ignore the nuance of types ofg legal sovreignty...
I have shared with you legal links that explicitly state that states int ehUSA are conisdered **legally** to be sovreign... I have also given you examples of this manifesting re: cannabis laws.
@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec No, you didn't. The link you sent earlier described the limits on their sovereignty.
Yes it described the limits on **their sovreignty**... it explicitly stated they were sovreign and the nature of that sovreignty, namely, where and how it applies.
@LouisIngenthron @thegonzoism @trinsec
Its not complicated... if you break federal law but do so within the confines of a state then the federal governemtn cant legally act.. you must be tried by the state, and if hte state laws make what you did legal, then your found innocent regardless of federal law.
We see this constantly with all sorts of laws, namely cannabis. Federally illegal but you can literally safely sell it in the open without the federal government doing anything about it... why.. state sovreignty.
@freemo @thegonzoism That's just not true. If it were, then most federal laws would be unenforceable.
The reason most federal laws are enforcable is because they are recognized by the state, so the state will enforce them. In the case of cannabis laws the states refuse to nenforce the federal laws and thus most growers and sellers are untouchable.
@freemo @thegonzoism That's just demonstrably untrue. Fed raids are a thing that happen regularly. They're in the news!
